1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Return-Path: <dave@dtrt.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A5DFC9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:30:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from newmail.dtrt.org (li1228-87.members.linode.com [45.79.129.87])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 411D62F5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:30:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from harding by newmail.dtrt.org with local (Exim 4.89)
(envelope-from <dave@dtrt.org>)
id 1efqml-0005nM-Oj; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:30:31 +0000
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 12:29:48 -0500
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Sjors Provoost <sjors@sprovoost.nl>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20180128172948.5y32cc6rvf3saolj@fedora-23-dvm>
References: <M8yPGuNmrXfNNwrYDDLpTVb__BhGysVW060Cq_tMc-AC6F7pKd1Vvb4wWbpmhhEvfoQ7fn-EcgfxRwJSVkFAZ5x57hg9XxpdZlDPi2IBJZg=@protonmail.com>
<20180122200023.GA1055@savin.petertodd.org>
<7yyS0mCgC8UWMYR_Jf1hB_GkkGj6Iu8tnIO7TeXWWyCrg9j4RZ7ziprCPZcv2xsFZdUzcFuHyeMU2-RBujzlSXdUAWlqdricuL2abaX0PWE=@protonmail.com>
<CACiOHGw=XUe6Fxmh8JkNPZWK1d3hWaaVPsNy1dPNoU1qULckrA@mail.gmail.com>
<oY5fxEk2FEJwHTtN9hKit2Unfu9C6CpSKLOVr0Tu99W_ctym_TNtEPLjgSg77e_RePgWHLBF7sNZoXa11aDgm6ClDxT33Jz2M-q3HZC1n40=@protonmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQBMSOhDBUZ6d9cG7fHg4tRr8o+E0j3ZXhdHkxv4kTwUA@mail.gmail.com>
<20180124074453.GC12767@savin.petertodd.org>
<CALPhJayjSopa6qPDAo=8-FVCz5+SjXneGMmoYF2Yi2p3FrCb0g@mail.gmail.com>
<PdUSy7mO1QTH-sAU_gBRjZOhLi1FoZRPUhNZt80kPL8d0lOgsCfMeNzf52Ae7_wrcTBy7d-tROvRLqBuHMMtmduzAskGuzPlwxI2yG4yY64=@protonmail.com>
<36682FF4-5C68-4610-9E82-FCE6F93E050F@sprovoost.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sjj45u6qc2brbp46"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <36682FF4-5C68-4610-9E82-FCE6F93E050F@sprovoost.nl>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:30:34 -0000
--sjj45u6qc2brbp46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 05:43:34PM +0100, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> Peter Todd wrote:
> > In fact I considered only requiring an increase in fee rate, based on t=
he
> > theory that if absolute fee went down, the transaction must be smaller =
and thus
> > miners could overall earn more from the additional transactions they co=
uld fit
> > into their block. But to do that properly requires considering whether =
or not
> > that's actually true in the particular state the mempool as a whole hap=
pens to
> > be in, so I ditched that idea early on for the much simpler criteria of=
both a
> > feerate and absolute fee increase.
>=20
> Why would you need to consider the whole mempool?=20
Imagine a miner is only concerned with creating the next block and his
mempool currently only has 750,000 vbytes in it. If two 250-vbyte
transactions each paying a feerate of 100 nanobitcoins per vbyte (50k
total) are replaced with one 325-vbyte transaction paying a feerate of
120 nBTC (39k total), the miner's potential income from mining the next
block is reduced by 11k nBTC.
Moving away from this easily worked example, the problem can still exist
even if a miner has enough transactions to fill the next block. For
replacement consideration only by increased feerate to be guaranteed
more profitable, one has to assume the mempool contains an effectively
continuous distribution of feerates. That may one day be true of the
mempool (it would be good, because it helps keep block production
regular sans subsidy) but it's often not the case these days.
-Dave
--sjj45u6qc2brbp46
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=W65t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--sjj45u6qc2brbp46--
|
